Periodontal health status of people with dementia – A systematic review of case-control studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The number of older people increases globally, so is the risk of cognitive impairment. Periodontal diseases are common among older adults with significant tooth loss and periodontal problems. Thus, this review explored the periodontal disease conditions among individuals with and without dementia. Methods: Available databases such as Medline/Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Embase/OVID were used in the search. Case-control studies reporting on periodontal disease and dementia parameters were selected based on PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes) framework. A Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality reporting of the studies and PRISMA guideline was used for screening. Results: A total of ten studies were identified for analysis. Most studies reported higher plaque index score (PI), bleeding on probing (BoP), pocket depth (PD) and clinical attachment loss (CAL) among individuals diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimer's disease compared with clinically healthy controls or individual diagnosed without dementia. A higher prevalence of subjects with severe periodontal disease was also observed in individuals diagnosed with dementia/Alzheimer's disease. The quality of the studies was found to be moderate with lower comparability and ascertainment criteria scores. Conclusion: This qualitative analysis has shown poor periodontal health and increased inflammatory mediators in case groups compared to the control groups. Thus, more quality studies and novel intervention are warranted to reduce the impact of periodontal health on dementia globally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".